Carex establishment on reclaimed oil sands landscapes : a case study at Suncor Energy Inc.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reclaimed oil sands landscapes are perceived to be low in plant diversity compared with \nnaturally occurring plant communities. Approximately 66 Carex species inhabit the oil \nsand region. This thesis is unique and represents the first large scale study of Carex \nestablishment on reclaimed oil sands landscapes. Research compared diversity and habitat \nvariables between natural ecosystems and reclaimed landscapes, and examined the \ncolonization mechanism for Carex establishment on reclaimed landscapes (i.e., ingress \nfrom adjacent natural ecosystems or emergence from the soil seed bank). Low positive \nassociations between the presence of Carex in natural and reclaimed landscapes, and the \npresence of species on reclaimed landscapes not accounted for in either the forest or edge \nplots, suggests Carex established from the soil seed bank and less so from natural ingress. \nCarex share the same seed dispersal mechanisms as many plants, so the implications may \napply to a broader range of plant species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".